If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

There's a whole butt-load of web pages on that Schiller Institute site about this so-called "landbridge" - it looks like they're trying to propose some sort of express rail-freight line from China to Europe, which (I'm guessing, though educatedly so) probably involves a lot of standardization of railroad gauges and various other unlikely things. The inscription on the monument is obviously photoshopped. Are you just wanting him to admit that? This is the Larouche Movement, SV - we should be glad they didn't put her in front of the First Manned Base on Mars.

QUOTE

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

Well, maybe it is.

In other words, you're saying this landbridge proposal is basically a scam to get people to donate money to the Larouche Movement, right? Why not just say so? He (assuming it really was HK) clearly didn't just "make it up" out of whole cloth, the way you'd make up an article on Kitten Huffing or something. It may be he's been deluded into thinking this landbridge thing is very, very real, or he may just be a tool of the Vast Larouche Conspiracy, but that still doesn't mean your (and Wikipedia's) reaction was proportional to the offense.

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

There's a whole butt-load of web pages on that Schiller Institute site about this so-called "landbridge" - it looks like they're trying to propose some sort of express rail-freight line from China to Europe, which (I'm guessing, though educatedly so) probably involves a lot of standardization of railroad gauges and various other unlikely things. The inscription on the monument is obviously photoshopped. Are you just wanting him to admit that? This is the Larouche Movement, SV - we should be glad they didn't put her in front of the First Manned Base on Mars ... In other words, you're saying this so-called landbridge proposal is basically a scam to get people to donate money to the Larouche Movement, right? ...

I'm giving just *one* example. How much of this stuff would you need before a ban becomes proportional?

We were never able to work out what the Eurasian Land-Bridge was. Herschelkrustofsky writes that construction has begun: "Following a conference held in China in 1996, which was addressed by Helga Zepp LaRouche, construction began in earnest." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e&oldid=3820805

Despite being asked many times by several editors, he was never able to say *where* construction had begun, but he also didn't say, "hang on, perhaps I've made a mistake." No, he continued trying to have the page say what he wanted, with no sources other than LaRouche -- who also doesn't say where construction has begun, so far as I can tell.

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

If you're defining "conflict of interest" as Wikipedia defines it, we already know all about that. HK has (obviously) made no secret about his political affiliations, and if you managed to find an article or photo or musical composition of his that appeared on some Larouche-related website or other publication, well, congratulations. But that doesn't mean he's being paid by them, or has a title, or anything like that. Larouche supporters are nothing if not generous when it comes to contributing content, after all.

Nobody here (well, hardly anybody) is particularly sanguine on the question of HK's ties to the Larouche Movement, but he's never threatened anyone here with even a whiff of sanction for disagreeing with him about any of that stuff. So, since he admits to it, and he's doing no harm here (or elsewhere, AFAIK, other than the occasional campaign contribution), what's the point of even bringing it up, other than to pursue your standard half-baked innuendo and conspiratorial hoo-ha campaign?

Long story short, this dog won't hunt either. I wouldn't want HK or his pals running my country, and neither should you, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the same rights to express his opinions as anyone else.

I am talking about someone *inventing* things. Making them up. Even you who wants to defend HK can surely see that that is problematic. Not least because, if he can do it there, he can do it here.

If I'm wrong -- if this is just my "half-baked innuendo" -- I hope HK will explain what (and where) the Eurasian Land-Bridge is, and what Helga Zepp-LaRouche (of the [[Schiller Institute]], which HK is also involved with) is standing next to in that image.

The point of bringing it up, as you asked, is that HK started a thread about his ban, with that as the title. And so I am giving just one example of why the ban is justified.

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

That can't be the same thing, Joy, because HK wrote that construction had begun by 2004. His article was not about a proposal.

This was the problem. When you tried to find out what he was talking about, there were several things that looked like one part of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but only up to a point; other things that looked like another part of it, but had nothing to do with LaRouche.

But there was nothing that fitted HK's description of it. I hope he'll come on here and explain what it is, with non-LaRouche sources who attribute the idea to LaRouche.

Now this isn't fair. Hell promised to answer my questions if I addressed hers. I did that and now she's evidently decided that my questions (and those by others) were too difficult to answer so she's now ignoring the "Who is this?" discussion for greener pastures where she has an easier task - trying to prove that LaRouche's wingnut fantasies are wingnut fantasies.

Here's an idea, why don't the LaRouchies take advantage of Wikipedia's license and start their own online encyclopedia a la Conserveapedia replete with articles about Martian moonbases, Queen Elizabeth's life as a drug pusher and the evil that is the World Wildlife Fund? Ed Poor can then go start Mooniepedia and whatshisname can start an Prempedia. Maybe then Jimbo can start Randpedia and write an article about how government intervention caused Hurricane Katrina?

Anyway, Hell, I want to know whether you think Proaby should have been banned from Wikipedia for outing Krimpet (and her parents) or for outing Crum (and his parents) and why you don't think he should have been banned from WR for trying to out someone else complete with their address after having promised not to do something like that again after the Krimpet and Crum outings? You've always been adamant that outing was a red line that cannot be crossed and should merit a ban yet you actually intervened in Proab's case to try to get him reinstated at WP after his ban and you are still pal-ling around with him even after he threw your best friend, Crum under the bus in what seems to have been a pique of sycophant to sycophant puppy dog jealousy. Your explanation here would be far more interesting then beating up Hershey for being a cultist - that's easy pickins and you're not going to impress anyone by doing it.

I'm giving just *one* example. How much of this stuff would you need before a ban becomes proportional?

It wasn't just the ban, though, nor was it just one. The ban was augmented by a whole host of strictures and special policy interpretations, and what Nobs eventually called "ideological profiling" used against several people who disagreed with Berlet, Dennis King, and yourself...

Look, I'm not going to defend the Larouche Organization, their various propaganda arms, and their tactics. And hey, if you want to post some more examples of articles HK posted about questionable Larouche-inspired proposals, etc., that's fine by me - just don't bother with the exaggerations, distortions, and innuendo, okay? You're better off just presenting the facts without all the "he's trying to destroy me and everything Wikipedia holds dear" nonsense.

QUOTE

Despite being asked many times by several editors, he was never able to say *where* construction had begun, but he also didn't say, "hang on, perhaps I've made a mistake." No, he continued trying to have the page say what he wanted, with no sources other than LaRouche -- who also doesn't say where construction has begun, so far as I can tell.

Is it just possible you were asking the wrong question? The way it looks to me, if this landbridge proposal is legitimate, the real work wouldn't be in "construction," it would be in getting a bunch of countries who don't like each other to agree on a whole new set of standards that might cost them a lot of money up-front. If the Larouche people are getting them to do that, maybe they really do have something. And frankly, any actual construction that might have occurred might be going on inside some rather insular countries, like Iran and Azerbaijan, and might not even be known to them.

Of course, I figured that out in about 10 minutes of reading, so don't feel bad - that's about 9 minutes and 50 seconds more than the average WP editor puts into researching something they're not already inclined to agree with.

In any event, this Larouche stuff is hardly a major focus of WR, though I will at least admit that if it weren't for HK and his experiences on WP, we probably wouldn't hear much (if anything) about it here at all.

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

And all of this happens without anyone violating any policies.

Why?

Because Wikipedia has no policies.

All they have is the fact that some faction doesn't like it, and has the power to edit the membership to suit their preferences.

Now this isn't fair. Hell promised to answer my questions if I addressed hers. I did that and now she's evidently decided that my questions (and those by others) were too difficult to answer so she's now ignoring the "Who is this?" discussion for greener pastures where she has an easier task...

Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche.

What happened was that HK turned up on WP to try to add LaRouche propaganda right, left, and centre. When opposed, he created socks. When blocked, he created more. Then he arrived here to trash the editors who stopped him, claiming to be innocent of all wrong-doing.

You're going along with that because of "my enemy's enemy." That's fine. But if you won't criticize what HK tried to do on WP, you have no right ever to criticize any other editor, because he was one of the worst.

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981

QUOTE(Hell Freezes Over @ Sat 11th April 2009, 8:58pm)

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 11th April 2009, 10:16pm)

This action set the stage for what followed. Slim and Will Beback began wikistalking me to various articles, accusing me of adding ideas which they alleged were similar to ideas advocated at one time or another by LaRouche ...

Your opening a thread about your WP editing puts me in an awkward position. I'm able to show that you had a serious conflict of interest (not just as a LaRouche follower), and that you misled people about your sockpuppets, but doing that would require me to post material that leads to a name, home address, telephone number, and place of work. I'd be banned if I were to do that.

So let me simply ask you this instead. Do you believe Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms or in any other)? Do you believe his views should be added to WP articles? Do you believe WP articles should be created about his real or proposed projects, when his publications are the only sources that mention them?

My childhood World Book Encyclopedia was so well behaved and I never even appreciated it. Without spilling and beans and earning a trip to bansville would you mind sharing with us exactly how you came to know H's name, address, phone etc? If that is to much to ask for could you at least tell us why?

Like Kato I thought that Wikipedia possessed mechanisms, like AfDs, to get shed of things that "the community" determined to be not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Even if these mechanism were stacked and dishonest they set some limits as to what Wikipedians might stoop to in order to get their own way. How do H's doxs fit into these processes? These protracted discussions of your tenure on Wikipedia could be called When Encyclopedias Attack.

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

Um, you need to stop posting here without reading the posts you're responding to. Kato was actually referring to Mbhiii(T-C-L-K-R-D)
, not HonourableSchoolboy. Click on the little "C" for the contribs - you'll see that he's correct, there's no Larouche-related content in there to speak of.

QUOTE

What happened was that HK turned up on WP to try to add LaRouche propaganda right, left, and centre. When opposed, he created socks. When blocked, he created more. Then he arrived here to trash the editors who stopped him, claiming to be innocent of all wrong-doing.

Well, that sounds a lot like your own story, if you swap "Larouche" for "New antisemitism," except of course for the "blocked" part.

QUOTE

You're going along with that because of "my enemy's enemy." That's fine. But if you won't criticize what HK tried to do on WP, you have no right ever to criticize any other editor, because he was one of the worst.

That's a bit of a stretch - if people don't feel qualified to criticize someone's WP activities because of unfamiliarity with the subject matter, they shouldn't feel like they have no "right" to criticize someone else's WP activities in areas they do know about.

I'll admit that's contrary to the fundamental WP principle of "pretend to be an expert when challenged," but I've never been much of one to agree with that.

You're going along with that because of "my enemy's enemy." That's fine. But if you won't criticize what HK tried to do on WP, you have no right ever to criticize any other editor, because he was one of the worst.

That's a bit of a stretch - if people don't feel qualified to criticize someone's WP activities because of unfamiliarity with the subject matter, they shouldn't feel like they have no "right" to criticize someone else's WP activities in areas they do know about.

I'll admit that's contrary to the fundamental WP principle of "pretend to be an expert when challenged," but I've never been much of one to agree with that.

This latest "enemy's enemy" meme is false. I saw it all clearly with my own eyes independently of this site and Hersch, I wrote about it (the Mbhiii case) when I saw that two years ago, and would write about it regardless of whether Hersch was here or any other factor. Because the profiling of innocent editors as "LaRouchies" was very real and very wrong. Ask Nobs, yet another victim of it.

I Googled "Eurasian Land Bridge" and found some info on it. Apparently, its a proposed transportation system (not a single bridge) that spans from Europe to Asia. Supposedly, China has developed or is developing part of it using the old Silk Road.

That can't be the same thing, Joy, because HK wrote that construction had begun by 2004. His article was not about a proposal.

This was the problem. When you tried to find out what he was talking about, there were several things that looked like one part of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but only up to a point; other things that looked like another part of it, but had nothing to do with LaRouche.

But there was nothing that fitted HK's description of it. I hope he'll come on here and explain what it is, with non-LaRouche sources who attribute the idea to LaRouche.

It does appear HK may have violated WP's policies and deserved to be banned. Many Reviewers have been banned for violating WP rules.

However, what others in this thread are concerned about is the problem of extremes. Pro-LaRouche editors may be a problem, but Anti-LaRouche editors are just as troublesome. Neutrality and "NPOV" should keep things objective. This is not how it has worked out.

I notice that Pro-LaRouche editors are closely analyzed. What of the Anti-LaRouche editors like Berlet and Will Beback? Have any major Anti-LaRouche editors been banned?

Now anyone that edits LaRouche-related articles will have their contributions scrutinized. I doubt I or anyone could write about the Eurasian Land Bridge concept sans LaRouche material without some administrator watching my every edit and waiting for me to "slip."

When Jon says there are no Wikipedia policies, I think he means (I may be wrong about that) that policies exist only to benefit those who can socially and technically enforce their own POV on Wikipedia. For now, the Anti-LaRouche group holds sway. Who knows? Tomorrow, the Pro-LaRouche group may be in charge. It's like Somalia with its many warlords and who knows how "neutrality" and "NPOV" will be enforced at any given time.

You may be right about HK's edits, but your enforcement of neutrality and NPOV on Wikipedia is uneven.

This latest "enemy's enemy" meme is false. I saw it all clearly with my own eyes independently of this site and Hersch, I wrote about it (the Mbhiii case) when I saw that two years ago, and would write about it regardless of whether Hersch was here or any other factor. Because the profiling of innocent editors as "LaRouchies" was very real and very wrong. Ask Nobs, yet another victim of it.

Mbhiii was never blocked as a LaRouche/HK sock, so I've lost track of what you're saying. What exactly did you see with your own eyes? Some examples, please.

When Jon says there are no Wikipedia policies, I think he means (I may be wrong about that) that policies exist only to benefit those who can socially and technically enforce their own POV on Wikipedia. For now, the Anti-LaRouche group holds sway. Who knows? Tomorrow, the Pro-LaRouche group may be in charge. It's like Somalia with its many warlords and who knows how "neutrality" and "NPOV" will be enforced at any given time.

That's a big part of it.

Wikipedia has no policies in the proper sense of the word. Everything advertised as a rule is negated by some other policy, guideline, or excuse for existence, then utterly demolished by ongoing practices.

The Wikimedia Foundation excuses its total lack of responsibility by saying that it's analogous to a phone company that simply provides a service. So Wikipedia is just a Big Party Line. Who denies an individual user the use of this service? Any user or group of users who can get away with doing so.

Other service providers can legitimately deny you their services if you violate the Terms of Service that you agree to abide by. Wikipedia has no Terms of Service. Period.

A "rule" is not a rule unless it is universal, that is, applies equally to all who act in specified ways. There are no rules like that in Wikipedia. We can all name dozens of active users who would have been banned years ago if there were any justice at all in Wikipedia.

Topping it all off, the rule of Ignore All Rules explicitly negates every other rule.

Without equal justice in the application of policies, there is simply no basis for saying that any ban is justified.

Do you believe Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms or in any other)? Do you believe his views should be added to WP articles? Do you believe WP articles should be created about his real or proposed projects, when his publications are the only sources that mention them?

1. LaRouche's publications are reliable sources for his own views under WP:SELFPUB.

2. LaRouche publications are reliable sources for the views of notable persons who have granted them interviews. (answer continues below)

Is there such a thing as the Eurasian Land Bridge? Is it connected to the [[Asian Highway Network]] that it redirects to? LaRouche's wife was photographed standing next to its supposed entrance, as though she were opening it, or were somehow responsible for it.

Perhaps HK can explain what it is?

The Eurasian Land Bridge was a proposal that LaRouche made back in the early 90s. Without question, the proposal exists. Your tactic was to use a bit of sleight of hand, and argue that my article claimed that it had been completed. This tactic evidently worked on credulous people who didn't read the article. Here is the photo in question, which shows LaRouche's wife being interviewed in front of a memorial built by the Chinese government, which is labeled, in English, "Eastern Terminal of Eurasia Landbridge." If you want to refer to it as the "supposed entrance," go ahead, it's a free country. Ms. LaRouche was in China at the invitation of the Chinese government, to speak on her husband's proposal. Refresh my memory -- was it you, or Will Beback that had the image deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it was "misleading"?